Miguel Lozano comments

@WillIiB, well, I was talking about the context of the countries where ISIS is stronger; poverty and violence makes a fertile soil to make grow armed groups against whatever. Anyway, like I have said before the real interests behind the ISIS’s problem have not to do with western elite desire of peace, because it is the last of their priorities. What western leaders really want is to be them who put the rules in Middle East, but as they can’t say it openly, they have been doing campaigns to convince people that ISIS will destroy west if they don’t do something.

It is true that ISIS is out of control, but ISIS is fruit of western attempts to support rebel groups against local governments, and the main source of energy that is strengthening ISIS today is the continuous western interventions that are feeding Muslim’s hate and making them feel corral. Besides, something very important it’s that was the West who turned it into a cultural war, because even it’s not true that there is a real risk that West end up under sharia law, Western elites that want to control Middle East are attacking their culture and naturally it is creating hate toward west that increase the ISIS influence.

There is not solution to the problem because neither US and its allies, nor Russia, will give up to its interests in Middle East. And the problem is that big now that there is no way that peace come soon, but as I said before, if peace were what we are looking for instead of control, the policies respect Middle East would be entirely different.

@WilliB, The ideology is very important, but what Im talking about is that no matter the reason they ended up being weathy nations playing the western rules, and this fact makes a big difference combating any possible resentment.

"@WilliB. Good post. But if the French have the will and resources, why not focus on both? The "Merkelian Invasion" at their borders as well as an air campaign over syria."

Because western nations are the invasors in Siria, this attack in France wouldnt happen if France werent bombing Siria; because France will make more enemies if it continues its affairs in Siria; because continue attacking Siria itself will increase the probability of other attack in France much more than anything else; because the ones that started the problem since de beginning with the wars of Afganistan, Irak, Libia, Siria, Egipt, etc were western nations.

"You are comparing Germany, South Korea, and Japan with Arab muslim tribal societies?? Seriously???"
Besides in the case of Germany, South Korea, and Japan Western nations invested tons of money in develop these countries making them wealthy partners of West, it clearly lead to consume the hate generated in the beginning.

The point is easy. The real sources of terrorism have been the economic and strategic interests of the western elites that have ended up sowing violence and destabilizing the Middle East. The real solution for this problem, though some people don’t want to see it, is leave Middle East alone and control the migration. In deed it would be one million of times better for everyone that the West stop attacking Middle East than the West continue receiving refugees or continue giving “humanitarian help” in Middle East. But unfortunately the true is that it won’t happen because what is moving the western elites are the same interests that generated the wars in Middle East since the beginning, and for them the dead of innocent people is not a priority.

We would have the capacity to protect our own territories from Muslims if we stop pushing them to hate us to that extreme; something that we could do if we stop bombing them, stop making their lives miserable and stop intervening in their own problems. The only thing that we really need to do is protect is our own territories. But as I say before, due that the peace is not the objective of western leaders they won’t stop, but they will do all the possible to manipulate people to make them support their wars, and I can see here that they have done a good job in many of you.

Dont people really realize how the actions of US and its allies along the time, have generated the circumstances that lead muslims to fight between them? And it besides the times West have attacked Middle East directly. If we are used to see Middle East as a a zone full of hate and violence its in the most part because the West influence that have not let them reach an equilibrium.

Terrorism is only a consecuence and a pretext. What we are really looking is Rusia, US and its allies fighting for the control of Middle East, in other words its just an act of imperialism where the worth of the human life is the least important.

The point is easy. The real sources of terrorism have been the economic and strategic interests of the western elites that have ended up sowing violence and destabilizing the Middle East. The real solution for this problem, though some people don’t want to see it, is leave Middle East alone and control the migration. In deed it would be one million of times better for everyone that the West stop attacking Middle East than the West continue receiving refugees or continue giving “humanitarian help” in Middle East. But unfortunately the true is that it won’t happen because what is moving the western elites are the same interests that generated the wars in Middle East since the beginning, and for them the dead of innocent people is not a priority.

We would have the capacity to protect our own territories from Muslims if we stop pushing them to hate us to that extreme; something that we could do if we stop bombing them, stop making their lives miserable and stop intervening in their own problems. The only thing that we really need to do is protect is our own territories. But as I say before, due that the peace is not the objective of western leaders they won’t stop, but they will do all the possible to manipulate people to make them support their wars, and I can see here that they have done a good job in many of you.

Some seem to not realize that the real reasons for all of this, are the economic and strategic interests of western elites; for western leaders the dead of innocent people is not a priority, that’s why they won’t change their foreign policy even if they have to sacrifice their own people and much much more people in middle east, these interests are the same for what since the beginning they made and supported all the middle east’s wars. If we are at a point that even leaving them alone they still could harm us, is only because the west have already harmed them too much. Nevertheless our capacity to protect our own territories will be enough if we stop bombing and making their lives miserable. But unfortunately the real objective of western elites is not the peace as I said in the beginning, and they will try to convince people of what some of you express: They are our enemies… They will come for us if we leave them alone… etc.

In a statement issued in English, he called on the international community to “eliminate all kinds of terrorism… including all regimes which patron and finance it”
So we would need to eliminate several western nations, US in first place.

Besides the disproportional violence that commit the state for something that simple as grope someone, it is even worse since it want to overreact on issues where usually there is only one word against other and no more because their nature make almost impossible to get an unequivocal proof. I ve always thought that the most fundamental principle is that its better let free 100 criminals than convict an innocent and that there is not something worse than go against it.

It shows the outrageous overcriminalization of men. There is not the slightest comparation between the damage caused from grop someone and the damage caused from the state punishing it. Which is the objective? Make men feel that the state is their enemy? Make men hate women?

@strangerland @GW Since my point of view it is the main role of the husband to give financial support, I think if a woman want to continue working, she should do it in the kind of job that let her balance her live without affect others. Besides I don’t think that make workplaces pay this price would really increase birthrates; as I can see the most important reasons in Japan for the low birthrate are others that just promote women continue working after her first childbirth.

"A superior telling a pregnant woman who asks permission to leave work at a fixed time, cannot say: “No, because you will not be treated differently from other employees.” Or staff who repeatedly make comments about being given extra work because a pregnant co-worker goes home early or asks for a lighter work load. "

But they are right, I think you as a worker wont want increase your load of work because there are other women that are not being capable to do their work anymore because they get pregnant. Their pay could be rather used to hire other one to do their job. These would be perfectly valid reasons to not want to hire women.

Because I happen to know many teenagers schoolgirls involved in a crazy sexual style of life, I can say that is a myth that paid dates harm them. Everyone live their experiences in a different way, but girls who voluntary look for it use to enjoy it too. Thats why since the begining not even see it like a problem.

It isn't the creation of a stronger military the problem Japanese should worry over. It is basically the US who have the interest that Japan invest in military to be able to use Japan for its own interests.

What I have clear, is that it’s not needed a dictatorship or a religious government, to have the government doing what it want no matter what the people want. No matter if it is a democracy or not, we see governments that don’t mind impose any stupid thing even against the will of the people or against their culture.

Im surprised with the comments that say J women dare to reject sex, even more when in other comments say that look their husbands like ATM, I dont see the balance. Talking from my culture it have not to do with her sex drive, but with the fact that she understand that give sexual pleasure is one of her duties as wife. Honestly, if she is not doing her job she could not complain about husband diverting money from home to prostitution to satisfy his needs.

@toshiko Not all the problems are easy, some could grow more what is expected, and there is a minimum of rules must be looked after: for example if someone grab your wallet, the less you can expect is that a police help you to recover it, independently of whether there are or there are not some kind of punishment. And there are other cases where they can be useful, for example to calm down quarrels and it doesnt have nothing to do with an arrest.